Jump to content

User talk:El C

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 96.238.128.155 (talk) at 23:31, 1 March 2020 (→I was speaking collectively for those of us upset with Connie Glynn for removing her videos.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

If you have the capacity to tremble with indignation every time that an injustice is committed in the world, then we are comrades. – Che.


Archived Discussions

Archive 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 9 11 12 13 14 15 16

For you

El C, contrary to your edit summary- I noticed you were gone, and missed seeing you on recent changes. You are one of my favourite editors. This is for you. Regards, dvdrw 04:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Many chipthanks for the kind words. Greatly appreciated. Best, El_C 06:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I noticed and missed you! (Official circular here). Novickas (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Thought of you while uploading this picture [1]... for all of your work. Novickas (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! El_C 11:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sort of in a hole and am having difficulties submerging. Speaking of holes/that chippie, I got to do some visiting in its burro recently...
Later, adding even more festive decorations, and inspected the whiskers:
And some drinky-drinky as well as rubbing under chin:
Also, two days ago I got to rub a cheekadee's tummy(!); for a handsome reward, of course:
Love,
El_C 11:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


You look really good in your purple hat! Bishonen | talk 00:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Free hat! Today, while cheekadeepetting, this lady who saw us from a far, came over and said: "Can I tell you something...? You're an angel of God."(!) To which I of course replied: "All hail Atheismo!" [nah, I said: "thank you, maddam, that's very kind of you" — what else could I say?] I took an especially neat cheekadeepetting photograph today: it remained visible between my thumb and index as it flew away, giving the illusion it was bee-sized! What an unexpected, and sweet, effect! El_C 02:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Wow, Capitano, where do you get a large enough sweater for a person with that hand? Bishonen | talk 20:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

And then there's Skunky! El_C 14:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oooo. Purdy!

Combine obvious love of animals with photography results in photographic win! — Coren (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Great to learn that peoples (plural!) like! Chickadee says hi! El_C 14:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Seasons Greetings

Here's some peanuts for Hidey. He hasn't got any!
Hello. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, everyone! Happy 2009! El_C 12:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Groundhog Day

Happy day! Jehochman Talk 19:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chippies

El C, I've been meaning to ask for ages. What is the link between revolutionary socialism and chimpunks? Did I miss that bit in Animal Farm? Is it something to do with resting the means of damn making from beavers? --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No link; but are you referring to Groundhog? (see left) There is a Groundhog-Chippie connection, which I was trying to further cultivate (see right). El_C 11:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Love is in the air ....dooooo .....dooo.dooo ......doooo ......dooo.doooo ." --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm envious. You get to pet ALL the fuzzeh creatures!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Book?

Let me know when it is out, and you will up your sales by one. :-) KillerChihuahua?!? 09:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4Tality Fractal

1. Four Facets of existence: 1. Matter 2. Energy 3. Space 4. Time

2. Four Dimensions: 1. 1D 2. 2D 3. 3D 4. 4D (temporal)

3. Four Fundamental interactions: 1. Strong 2. EM 3. Weak 4. Gravity

4. Four States of matter: 1. Solid 2. Liquid 3. Gas 4. Plasma

El_C 07:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rev-dels

Just for information at the moment: are you able to do revision deletions? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Affirmative. El_C 20:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. There are a couple of admins I usually contact when I see something that needs to deleted, but unfortunately they let real life interfere with their admin duties. You are online a lot at the same times I am, so it's good to have another person to contact if needed. I generally only ask personally if it's both serious and urgent. - BilCat (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, by all means. If I'm around, please don't hesitate. El_C 02:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. I realize.my wording above presumes you'd be willing, and that I didn't actually ask, so thanks. :) - BilCat (talk) 04:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Romania

And all I got was this... Whoa!

I can live with your highly arbitrary closing summary of the RfC on the Talk page, so I do not want to persuade you to change it. However, you closed other on-going debates as well. Could you open the other debates? Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 05:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the thanks I get! El_C 05:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And all I got was a ^^^

El_C 06:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about restrictions

Hi once again. In Juan Guaidó's article, a change to a section's article was made and an image was removed ([2][3]). After other unrelated edits, including in the aforementioned section, restoring the original versions would constitute 1RR or 0RR? Thanks beforehand. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a violation of your restriction to restore it without gaining consensus for such a restoration first. El_C 16:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Roger, thanks! --Jamez42 (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Guaidó's article, the following text was added to the lead: Guaido has nevertheless been unable to unseat Maduro from power in Venezuela, since Maduro is the true, "innocent" president, and Guaido's proposed regime would be corrupt (change bolded, diff). I wish to revert this change based on WP:NPOV, but I don't want it to be a violation of my restriction. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that a similar edit was made in Nicolás Maduro's article by the same user, Ferctus: (...) although Maduro is the real president. (diff) I don't think this text has been added before, and I think it should be removed on the same grounds. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I took care of it. But those type of edits are exempted, since they're virtually indistinguishable from vandalism. El_C 12:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Jamez42 (talk) 11:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, El C. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. InvalidOS (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jinx

[4] [5] You owe me a coke. :-) – Levivich 17:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about a Cherry Coke Zero. El_C 17:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reliable source

Hello, recently i have fixed some source named dr. Khalid Basalamah that i have inserted before so it contain more proper source link rather than just youtube video, as per Kansas bear guidance, i even asked first in noticeboard page if the source can be used since he giving assessment of the primary sources(Ibn Hisham, Waqidi, Ibn Hibban etc.) from his expertize in history since the source has doctorate title from legal academic institution. but seems HistoryofIran insisted from his biased opinion that the source does not qualify as WP:RS and keep reverting my edits despite my attempt to change the link from youtube to dr Khalid Basalamah official link. can you help us to solve the issue? Ahendra (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because your clerical "source" isn't reliable, using him as a source is no different than using some Harry Potter book. The same goes for all those other clerical stuff or blogs or whatever it is (http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/?). Anyhow, El Cid; right after his block expires he resumes his crusade of adding non-RS nonsense "sources" [6]. He clearly refuses to understand what is RS and what isn't. Indeed, as Kansas Bear said not so long ago, this user is here to write articles to his POV [7]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahendra: I don't think it matters whether it is featured on YouTube or on that individual's official website. The two editors commenting on the RSN thread disagree that this source meets the threshold of reliability. They are both editors in good standing and I am inclined to accept their assessment, for now. Please stop adding that individual as a source for anything until you are able to get consensus that they are, indeed, a reliable source. Until this is accomplished, you are prohibited from adding content that is attributed to this source. Full stop. El_C 23:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, ill held now about that source as per current consensus Ahendra (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Jordan

Hello, I am in the middle and just add facts with citations (not nonsense like so many nitwits). Thank you for locking the Jim Jordan page it was getting so annoying undoing the phony edits that I avoided wikipedia for a while. Be well & prosper! B — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExCITEable (talk • contribs) 01:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Glad you're finding the protection helpful. Happy editing! El_C 01:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fona2000

Hi, sorry to say that Fona2000 has continued to edit war at Take That following your warning: [8]. Any advice on how to proceed? U-Mos (talk) 03:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're edit warring just the same, so what would you have me do? Right now, I'm inclined to block both of you from the article for a while. El_C 03:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking for advice rather than reverting again - as I have done previously when opening discussions and reporting - but the other user has not engaged at any stage. If you're suggesting I could have acted better to resolve the matter, I'm all ears. U-Mos (talk) 06:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of you have engaged the article talk page in weeks. You both have been reverting one another. That isn't conducive to resolving the dispute. El_C 06:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Understood - so you think it's worth posting on the talk page again? And then what if responses still aren't forthcoming? U-Mos (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@U-Mos: I can't even figure out which version is the status quo ante — both of your edit histories go too far back. I've partially blocked Fona2000 from the article for 2 weeks, for lack of communication. Clearly, you've put more of an effort at communicating than they have, so that is to your credit. Maybe you have a better idea of what the pre-edit war version is? Because that is the version that should be displayed while the dispute remains unresolved. El_C 06:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for your time. Fona2000 edited the stable version and was reverted by other users, initially as an IP, e.g. edit & revert. I changed the information - initially not aware of the recent edit history - for the first time on December 17, then observed the implicit consensus of the earlier edits and aimed to preserve that subsequently. U-Mos (talk) 06:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the background. I've reverted back to the status quo ante. Fona2000 is welcome to engage the article talk page (from which they are not blocked) to try to get consensus for their newer version. Hopefully, you both are able to reach an amicable understanding. El_C 06:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So how do I request a review?—Spasiba5 (talk) 09:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Siddha medicine

Warring underway on a page that you have previously protected (still appears to be in place, as my request today for protection went to your previous protection). The two 'camps' are 1) those supporting sourced content to Indian authorities vs. 2) those supporting the pseudoscience and quackery of Siddha medicine. Would appreciate your review and resolution. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From a cursory glance, it looks like the dispute arose from changes you've introduced in late November. I don't know enough about the matter of the Indian Medical Association's view versus that of the Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy, even though it is clear that per MEDRS, the former carries more weight on the English Wikipedia. At any rate, I fully-protected the page for a long while, while this gets sorted. Perhaps this is something a quorum of admins ought to deliberate on at Arbitration enforcement, though it is surely to constitute a highly unusual request (I tend to think this isn't something the Committee will want to comment on directly). Myself, I simply don't know enough about the subject, which places me at a bit of a disadvantage in virtually all respects save my detachment. I'm open to suggestions on how to proceed, in any case. El_C 16:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The dispute on talk page is valid and it is that a volunteer organization is certainly not a credible source since it is not producing scholarly work neither it has any authority. I do think that the problem into this article had been introduced by Zefr's edits and appears to have been violating WP:SYNTH, typically similar to his some of the earliest edits on this article that were violating WP:NPOV and misrepresented sources. [9] Would you mind restoring the version to 28th November[10] until consensus is reached? I would also note the increasing calls on talk page by enough users to remove the problematic content from main article.[11] ML 911 17:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't feel confident enough at this time to edit the protected page — due to the Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions the topic falls under, not even to the status quo ante version, though that is an option that remains open-ended. As for the IMA, it is a reputable body established almost a century ago, which counts among its membership over 300,000 Indian doctors, so labeling it as "not a credible source" seems rather questionable. El_C 17:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where as Siddha medicine is in use for thousands of years, so it would require consensus throughout mainstream academia that it is indeed a pseudoscience. We don't have single academic source to highlight that. The subject must prefer WP:HISTRS at the same time given its antiquity which a volunteer organization fails to fulfill. This topic does not fall under pseudoscience but WP:ARBCAM the Arbcom sanction created for Alternative medicines as Arbcom agreed that not all alternative medicines are pseudoscience. I also don't think that protection was warranted since nearly all of the edit warring editors (about 4) were blocked before protection. ML 911 17:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should have been blocked also. ——SN54129 17:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not, SN54129. May I suggest the content portion of this discussion be moved to the article's talk page? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: Indeed, considering I have already criticised your blocks on that very talk page, this conversation would fit nicely. ——SN54129 18:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but you didn't ping me. I'll go take a look. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per Ivanvector's suggestion, I have refactored this conversation to the article talk page and have replied there. El_C 18:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

110.224.194.226

Just a note that the IP address is xwiki spamming [12] and appears to be static, though generally also operating in special:contributions/110.224.192.0/18. I am generating the following xwiki reports

though that /18 looks to have a nice collection of other domains which I may try to run xwiki reports for at a later time. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the note. El_C 22:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bloomberg

Hi, El C! I recently had to semi-protect the Michael Bloomberg article and I was surprised to see that it wasn't under 1RR restrictions. Most of the other current candidates are. Could you please take a look and see what you think? (I don't do that kind of tagging - haven't made myself familiar enough with that area to feel comfortable.) Thanks. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 21:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Ilirida

Hi. After a semi protection put by you on the Republic of Ilirida expired, the article has been disrupted by some IPs (apparently being operated by the same person). I tried to explain the issue to one of the IPs on my talk page but after that another rv by them happened. If the disruption persists, can you put a new semi protection? Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 21:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with disappearing edits (I think we conflicted somehow)

It's the second time that I see edits disappear in this discussion when you post: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:_ජපස_reported_by_User:gtoffoletto_(Result:_no_violation)

User:ජපස's message is clearly missing.

I also noticed earlier that another editor had written something (it seemed to support my thesis but that could be wishful thinking) and when you wrote it disappeared. Could some kind of conflict be happening?

Thanks! --Gtoffoletto (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed: it's gone from edit history too. No idea who the other user was earlier...damn...--Gtoffoletto (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gtoffoletto: you must be conflating it with another page, because edits don't just disappear from the edit history, there's always a record, even in the rare cases when material is suppressed. El_C 22:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did you delete the message you replied to? It's gone. Or am I crazy? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The entry of edits cannot be deleted from the history — no one can delete them, save perhaps the developers. El_C 22:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You replied to no one? This happened 5 min ago. I remember the reply exactly. We both replied but the comment is not there anymore. Worrysome? Have a look: [13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtoffoletto (talk • contribs) 22:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you're trying to say. El_C 22:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll recap. There is a worrisome BUG I am trying to point out to you:

Not in the page... Not in the edit history. IT'S GONE. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was me. El_C 23:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
jeez. Sorry for the waste of time! I am at home with 40C of fever so not in the most lucid of conditions and this report ordeal is really not my thing. Will sleep it off and post a new report tomorrow as you suggested. Got too much time on my hands unfortunately as every other edit gets reverted...one can't even be sick in peace... Thanks for the help and for the guidance! --Gtoffoletto (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Hope you feel better soon. Rest well. El_C 23:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The miracle of modern medicine did it's thing and I'm back on track (sort of). Sorry again for yesterday. Quick question: could I correct my "phantom" reply to you yesterday? [14] it's simply nonsensical and a bit embarrassing :-( maybe I could strike though the first part?
Also FYI: REPORT --Gtoffoletto (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll try to have a look at it soon. Yes, you may correct your comment —which I agree is a bit confusing— in the archived AN3 discussion, just be sure to add an Addendum if you add text (strikethrough by itself is fine, also). El_C 15:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Glad to hear you're feeling better. El_C 15:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Here is the edit. I've kept it as minimal as possible: [15]--Gtoffoletto (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft

@El C, Kautilya3, Velella, Deacon Vorbis, Jerm, Schazjmd, Redrose64, and The9Man: The matter I had put up at, "Religious conversions in Pakistan" was removed because I had copied it from the, "Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan" article. I have now created a new draft here: Draft:Religious conversions in Pakistan . Please improve the draft and move it to where it belongs. Thanks!—Spasiba5 (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, Spasiba5. However, the draft will only be moved once a review deems it fit for the article mainspace. I wish you success and gratification throughout that process. Happy editing! El_C 09:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: So how do I request a review?—Spasiba5 (talk) 10:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Read the instructions here under the heading: Submitting for review. El_C 10:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: I would hate to see a rejection, so can you take a look at the draft and tell me if it is upto the mark? At least can you suggest someone who will comment about it?—Spasiba5 (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll try to have a look soon — but, I'm afraid my familiarity with the topic is rather limited. Not sure who knows a lot about this topic, sorry. El_C 10:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: OK, please look at it and improve it yourself - it is a travesty that these conversions are happening and the least we can do is have a Wikipedia article about it (thinking like Che Guevara - I don't have the guts to do anything like him). Thanks!—Spasiba5 (talk) 10:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Spasiba5, it's a little concerning that you say it is a travesty that these conversions are happening and the least we can do is have a Wikipedia article about it. That implies that your purpose is to right a wrong.
The main problem that I see with your draft is that it doesn't communicate what its own point is. It's just a prose-list of different examples of religious conversions. First it's arguing that not all conversions that are viewed as forced actually are forced, except for when they are. Then it says Hindus are bribed to convert. Then it talks about Christian missionaries. Oh, and a non sequitur about Khan and Modi is mixed in.
It also looks like you've added much of this same content to Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan, so I don't understand the purpose of the draft repeating it.
I also question the need for a separate article. A concise summary of the different types of religious conversions that are common in Pakistan would make more sense as a section in Religion in Pakistan. My two cents... Schazjmd (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@El C and Schazjmd: I am new here and know that that draft at Draft:Religious conversions in Pakistan is far from perfect which is why I am asking for help. There are conversions in Pakistan that are voluntary and I think El_C with this edit at the Hinduism in Pakistan article shows that he supports that idea. Now please help improve that draft so that we can put it back where it belongs. Right now, the religious conversions in Pakistan article redirects to the forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan article. Thanks!—Spasiba5 (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft edits

Hi, This is regarding Jaggi Vasudev. I finally got around to putting something together for this article. Since the page has been locked, I've put my edit on my Sandbox. I copied the live page as it is right now into my sandbox, and made all my edits on that, so this diff will show you all the changes I'm proposing. Please take a look and let me know what you think. I believe this is more in line with BLP guidelines. Tamilmama (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll try to have a look soon. In the meantime, please feel free to start a section on the article talk page —with a link to that sandbox— for the purpose of gaining consensus for your changes. El_C 16:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, El C. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Doug Weller talk 19:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Received and responded. El_C 19:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was not good faith.

I am blocked(Croatia article) and this must be respected but you must see acrobatics on talk page. I'm blocked because I deleted part of sentence in the article( engaged in an edit war) and these editors then returne my edit although they knew that this clame had not been proven in the sources. Now some of them would delete the whole sentence. They probably looked this information for a year or years but now they would delete it. Every book which talks about this time period in Croatian history mentions Vlachs etc. Now it would be good if this information was not available. I'm here alone, not calling anyone or asking for help but this must be followed by someone. They were not interested in deleting disputed information from the article but now when they see that it is unproven they have interest not to enter more accurate and neutral information in the article. It's not good faith. My answer "Tuvixer Do you understand what we are discussing? On what page of the source is mentioned that "Most of the transferred population were Orthodox Vlachs"? I didn't put this information in the article, I deleted (a term used for a community of mostly Orthodox refugees, mainly Serbs) because this information has no evidence in RS and violates Wikipedia rule. I engaged in edit war because you and other two editors who kept that information in an article which has no evidence in sources, and you know that. Now when it failed to preserve that clame in the article now you would delete whole sentence? Why you did not do it before my block? Obviously you have not worked in good faith or checked sources, and that's how you probably worked for years. Therefore when my block expires I will enter Vlachs and Orthodox Slavs that is I enter information which have most sources. This is historical information for most of Croatian history and we must respect that part of history. I am not ashamed that part of Croats has and Vlachs origin and this should be clearly presented to the public. Then we'll see what you say." Thanks.Mikola22 (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mikola22, please engage the content on the article talk page. If you reach an impasse there, please feel free to make use of dispute resolution and accompanying requests. El_C 19:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Who knows until when I will contribute to the accuracy of the articles because I'm here alone. This is just for the record. Thanks.Mikola22 (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: note that the user in question is still edit warring (all over the place) and continuing with his crusade. I think that you can agree that not all of us want to spend their Wiki time cleaning up after somebody's mess. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Article "Statuta Valachorum" (a term used for a community of mostly Orthodox refugees, mainly Serbs). There is no information in the sources claiming that Vlachs is a term for Orthodox refugees which are mainly Serbs. The Vlachs are not Serbs nor mainly Serbs, Croats are also Vlachs but they are not of Serb origin because Vlachs are not Serbs. On Croatia talk page is all explained. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered Sources the do not speak about that nor this information exist in the sources. Mikola22 (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block of 2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:39

Hi, I'm just reviewing an unblock request made by 2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:39 (talk · contribs) which you blocked in October last year Is there a reason why you set a 6 month block duration on this IP account? This seems an unusually long duration, especially as you appear to have imposed the block for an edit made in April 2019. I'd suggest unblocking here, unless this is an open proxy or I'm missing something. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D, sorry, I no longer recall. But in any case, unblocked. Thanks for taking the time to do your due diligence. It is much appreciated. El_C 07:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for following up on this, and thanks also for unblocking. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Flack

One day you may be in my position on the wrong end of a witch hunt, without any help or representation. Then you will know. I accept you sentence as you are my judge, and I have to obey your edicts. Wallie (talk) 08:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been there, which is why I know that this is not one of those times. In this instance, you have squandered all remaining opportunities to engage others in good faith, which brings consequences. Also, you have the right of appeal, always. El_C 08:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
M'Lord. Can I be represented by learned council at my appeal? Wallie (talk) 09:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... El_C 09:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wallie, you deleted my request on your talk page, so I'll repeat it here: can you please archive much of your talk page? The page crashes on mobile devices as it's so long, and it's pointless to have 14 years of information for people to have to scroll down the huge contents list. - SchroCat (talk) 10:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking me

Hello, I am not sure if I am allowed to do this, but the user who reported me ignores all my requests to discuss the issue for which I was edit warring. Would you please mind taking a look at Talk:Macedonian Blood Wedding and see that he constantly ignores my point and adopts an indifferent or a very personal stance (he wrote "I also disagree with some of the information you have added, but I do not remove it" about reliably sourced, almost word-to-word quoted academic articles which further exemplifies that he propagates his own views on the topic and tries to build a story that works for him) that does not contribute to us solving the dispute? Otherwise, where should I report this issue? I reported it at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard but have received no answer whatsoever. Please note that I am only here to improve Wikipedia in a non-biased way by only using reliable articles, making no original assumptions and doing no original research and adding as much relevant content to the article as possible while User:Jingiby seems to do the opposite. Thank you very much in advance and sorry for bothering. DD1997DD (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DD1997DD, you've tried a dispute resolution request to bring further outside input to the dispute but so far it didn't work. So try another —like a Request for Comment— there is more than one. Contravening the 3 revert rule actually worked against your interests. Good luck. El_C 17:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this paraphrased enough?

El_C, Is this paraphrased enough?: The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan found that girls were actually kidnapped and married to Muslim men against their wishes or sold to them and these girls had not run away with them. Some girls from affluent Hindu families, run away with their Muslim boyfriends, but such marriages are short lived. The family links are severed and these females are then co-erced to marry some other Muslim man or are exploited by marriage agents.[1]

According to Pir Ayub Jan Sarhandi, a cleric accused of forced conversions, many Hindu girls are abducted and kept as sex slaves, but they are not converted.[1]

Most of these females have either lost their husbands or are extremely poor. According to Pir Ayub Jan Sarhandi, the government is supposed to look after all Hindus and others, but they approach him when they do not get government help.[1]—Spasiba5 (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c "Sindh's Stolen Brides". Outlook. 23 January 2006. Retrieved 14 February 2020.
Spasiba5, it's actually best to not paraphrase but write your own original prose. El_C 17:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pro wrestling titles

Hi. Sorry to bother you. The Ip made the same edition again. Yesterday, I asked for 3 titles. Just one day after the protection expired, the IP vandaliced the Crash Womens title and the Impact World title. It's super annoying, I have been handling this behavior for months. [16] [17] --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Range blocked for one year. El_C 18:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alex-h

I am sorry to bother you. I found these two edits to be problematic. Would you take a look at them? There is any attribution in this edit and some information is missed in this edit such as Facebook comment. I think that the user burns his chance that you gave him.Saff V. (talk) 12:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see Facebook being cited, I see Al Jazeera — please clarify. El_C 12:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this edit, Radio Farda reported it from "Human rights activists", but the user stated it as a fact with no attribution. For Facebook, I explained the issue here.Saff V. (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alex-h is not obliged to look for whatever source a reliable source had used when citing that source. Likewise for iranhumanrights.org, whose reliability I am unfamiliar with. El_C 19:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chick culling

Hi El C! ~ Hope things are well ~ can you take a peek (no pun intended) here Chick culling/talk ~ thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 14:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Mitch. Nice to see you! Yes, doing well, thanks for asking. Hope you're doing well, too. My suggestion would be to remove all the images whose copyright status you've identified as being in question until their true origin is properly authenticated. All the best, El_C 18:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman Empire

What did you change back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koentje1984 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you've added. El_C 20:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

How is calling it "the Rape of Africa" incorrect? Multiple sources have referred to it as such, and if we're being honest, that's exactly what it was. 124.148.252.56 (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to establish that this constitutes a mainstream alternate name for the Scramble for Africa by citing quality sources to that effect. You've yet to do so. El_C 05:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean like the currently used names for the article, such as "Partition of Africa" and "Conquest of Africa", which currently have no sources whatsoever? Why should I have to cite sources for a commonly held name for the event whilst the former don't? And it's not like the "Partition of Africa" is well known. 124.148.252.56 (talk) 09:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about "Conquest of Africa" —that may be worth looking into— but "Partition of Africa" is not only well-known in the historiography, but there is are also multiple mentions of it throughout the article, including by various high-quality sources cited — these, the lead summarizes, so there is no need for sources in the actual opening (per lead section). Using "Rape of Africa" (in contradistinction to, say, Rape of Nanjing) is not, however, mentioned throughout the article, so you cannot claim that is something the lead summarizes. That is why the burden of proof is on you to substantiate your claim that it is a mainstream alternate name. Using the argument that other stuff exists improperly elsewhere, too, is contrary to how Wikipedia additions are meant to be retained. As is adding material for polemical reasons. Again, to add "Rape of Africa" in bold, you need multiple, high-quality sources that show its usage as a mainstream, alternate name for Scramble for Africa. Otherwise, it merely constitutes your own original research. El_C 14:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Hi El C, I am here for your suggestions since you had closed the recent case on ANI related to me and some others. Please take a look at This diff. Are editors allowed to go around and bad mouth people (who they have content dispute) in this way ? I have given DS alerts and also left a note [18] on their talk page asking them to stop this. How do you suggest taking this further, since I am clearly not amused by this harassment. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a diff — it is an old revision. Anyway, sorry, I am not familiar with this dispute in any way whatsoever and am not that inclined to take it on singlehandedly at this time (I feel like I'm spread a bit thin at the moment). But if there is misconduct at an area that falls under discretionary sanctions, you have the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard at your disposal where a quorum of uninvolved admins can evaluate the matter and apply sanctions, if needed. El_C 14:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have corrected the diffs. this baiting makes their intentions to continue this behavior very clear. Will do as suggested. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Partial edit warring blocks

Both partially blocked for one month by you for edit-warring at Croatia. Now happily edit-warring at Slavonia. Perhaps you can see why I dislike partial blocks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, it was worth a try. El_C 18:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Northwestern Syria offensive (December 2019–present)

Hey El_C, seems the article Northwestern Syria offensive (December 2019–present) has been targeted by a block-evading IP editor. Today, Bbb23 blocked for 72 hours editor 176.88.142.169 for disruptive editing and personal attacks. Just three hours later, 176.88.136.20 (similar IP) started editing in a similar POV pattern. At one point, an edit was also made by 176.54.10.88 (again a similar IP). His edit was virtually the same as one of those made by 176.88.136.20. So protecting the article against unregistered editors for a time might be prudent. Of course its your call after you analyze the situation when you have the time. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, EkoGraf. Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Keep up the good work! All the best, El_C 21:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and all the best to you too! :) EkoGraf (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Hanau shootings

Please read this page. Someone is spreading #fakenews. 46.221.164.231 (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you telling me about it? I've never edited the page before? What's the connection here? El_C 00:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by past and projected GDP (PPP)

Please don't undo my edit; it is quite useful and detailed. I worked so hard on that information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferctus (talk • contribs) 02:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No unsourced items, please. El_C 02:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PricewaterhouseCoopers
He is the one who made the GDP (PPP) from the deep future. I don't know how to source in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferctus (talk • contribs) 02:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
List of countries by GDP growth 1980 - 2010
That's where I got this. Check the GDP (PPP) section. Please could you source this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferctus (talk • contribs)
Please sign your username at the end of your comments. Please review WP:INDENT. Please stop creating new sections for every new comment. If you copy content from one Wikipedia article to another, please make sure you provide attribution that you have done so. Thanks and good luck. El_C 03:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Thanks, Gerda! El_C 08:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Good day, see? Take music and flowers to your liking ;) - It's great to see your name so often on my watchlist. One aread where I often wait for admin action - not now - is WP:ITNN, where we nominate for recent deaths to be shown on th Main page, and often the time between an article found [Ready] and then is [Posted] seems [too] long to still call it recent. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good ol' ITNC —where I got no credit for being the first to have  Posted the Corona virus outbreak, but upon (admittedly, perhaps somewhat prematurely) doing the same for the Kirk Douglas RD got a what-the-fuck-barbeque— it's a magical place! El_C 11:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see, sorry for touching some wound ;) - Same for me: last year, I nominated a great pianist for RD, after I first had create an article which took time, and then carried away to also make it decent, - and by then her death was so long ago that she wasn't mentioned at all. The more woman, and the more foreign, that danger seems imminent, and if I may bother you in case I seee it coming again, that would be great. At present, it's a man, listed 20 Feb (although who knows if that was the day?), and nobody even commented yet, so nothing to be concerned about right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, by all means, if you feel Peter Dreher is [Ready], let me know so I could do the honours. El_C 12:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated him, so am not the most independent to judge ;) - and I'm already busy with the next, a woman, but mostly not foreign. - I really think we have some unintended bias there: the most prominent figures (white U.S. males) get speedy attention, and appear soon at the top position, while the female foreigners - often reported late to start with - take so long to even be noticed that they get only a place towards the end, finally, - as long as we go by date of death and not "in at the top". Result: those who are promminent already get preferred showing, more in front, and longer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, countering systemic bias is a treacherous mistress — though in the case of Kirk Douglas, I have to admit my own affinity for his admirable work countering the Hollywood blacklist... Anyway, +Peter Dreher to RD. El_C 13:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
February flowers
Alte Liebe
Thank you, love-ly! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated the poet for ITNN. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At the [Ready]! El_C 14:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
and posted ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was quick! I helped? El_C 17:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
think so ;) - today's Alte Liebe became especially meaningful after yesterday's funeral. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

United Future Party

Hellow! I'm Jeff6045 from South Korea. I'm Insterested in Korean politics and due to my interst I'm trying to make good edits with articles about South Korean politics wihch are very familiar with me. However in the article about United Future Party ip users are keep adding unconstructive contents despite the fact that I have warned these users for several times. These ip users are keep adding word "centre-right" although other editors have made decision not to state party's political spectrum due to its controversial issue. Since you have much long experience on WP I wish you can help me to deal with these issues. Thank you for reading! Jeff6045 (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jeff6045. Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Hope this helps! Regards, El_C 00:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Thank you very much! Jeff6045 (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please help to repair page

Can you repair page of Angel_Tee ? 180.242.182.132 (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. What's broken? El_C 01:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Toronto FC

I'm not sure that Toronto FC merits full protection for two more months. It appears to be have locked based on recent changes from one editor that triggered the abuse log multiple times, and a few individual anons but the filters worked and editors were vigilant. At the very least, reduce to ECP. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is set to semi already — you must have misread. El_C 03:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for closing this discussion. Your closing was neutral, and I appreciate that. I understood quite early in the discussion, that I wasn't going to achieve the result I'd prefer, but decided to at least state the two points I felt needed to be made there. Debresser (talk) 11:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, Debresser. Thanks for the note. Glad you view my close as neutral. Regards, El_C 11:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you could be the one to close Mozart ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
♫ ♫ El_C 12:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicoljaus

I just wanted to leave a comment (if it's worth anything); I do not agree with putting editor Mikola22 and Nicoljaus on the same level (and same block range). Nicoljaus is by far older and experienced editor, he opened a bunch of RFCs and debates on the TP. The other editor did not such thing but ignored other users all the way while pushing several fringe theories. On the other hand, Nicoljaus seeked consensus. I understand that he broke basic Wiki rules, but the 2 are not at all the same, even if it does not seems so. cheers Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the blocks' length is due to the incessant edit warring between the two. I partially blocked both of them from one article due to that, but they just kept edit warring in other articles. At any rate, they are both free to compose a convincing unblock request, and I wish them success in that endeavor. El_C 16:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Religion in Albania

One editor made a change without any sort of consensus, and then made a protection request, apparently to protect their own version. You protected the article, but for the sake of correctness you should have returned the stable version, the one before the dispute started. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, the version that gets protected is ultimately random. Only in rare cases that involve special circumstances should the protecting admin also revert back to the status quo ante version. El_C 00:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not that the page was protected with that version. After all the protection is just for a week, and nobody can keep a version without gaining common ground with the other side of the dispute. The protection request said "Edit-warring facts supported by disputed census" implying that the editor who made the request is "right" and other other side of the dispute is "wrong" (following an edit summary on the article that indicates that consensus in not needed at all), and your protection of the page could be interpretated as you confirm all of that. The guideline on the full protection policy says that "Editors convinced that the protected version of an article contains policy-violating content, or that protection has rewarded edit warring or disruption by establishing a contentious revision, may identify a stable version prior to the edit war and request reversion to that version". Anyways, as I said, it is not important for me what version the article has for a week. To address my concern though, you could also leave a note on the article's talk page clarifying for all editors involved on whether consensus is needed to change the article or not. We can sort out a solution by ourselves but since you intervened, you could be more helpful. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how my protection could be interpreted to confirm anything, nor do I find it necessary to make any further comment regarding it at this time. El_C 01:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale given for requesting protection was "Edit-warring facts supported by disputed census", blaming one party of the content dispute. And you made the protection, protecting the other party's version without making sure everyone is clarified. Everything would be different if the protection request was neutrally worded. However, talking more with you on this seems to be pointless. Your lack of ability to understand my concerns speaks volumes. I could have spent the time I spent here with more helpful things. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Making "sure everyone is clarified" is simply not necessary — you are reading too much into the protection vis-a-vis the protection request. El_C 01:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank God we are all on the same page now. It's good the OP reached the conclusion that he could have spent his time doing more helpful things than criticise an excellent admin who chose to protect the WP:WRONGVERSION. Dr. K. 03:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-viewed YouTube videos

Hi, do you remember my request for protection and your answer? After the end of the one year protection vandalism restart, and now after the two days protection vandalism restart again, can you semi-protect the page for an indefinite period of time please? (And sorry for my bad english, I'm not english)--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 10:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 17:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Aleppo (2012–2016)

An IP editor (with a changing IP) is engaging in edit warring at the article Battle of Aleppo (2012–2016) writing unsourced material, inserting info about an ongoing offensive and presenting it to be part of the battle that ended four years ago and most importantly reverting a total of four editors who canceled out his edits (including yourself). I think a new article protection against unregistered editors is needed unfortunately. EkoGraf (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 18:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! EkoGraf (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warsaw Uprising

Be more tolerant of other opinions. I think your editing is essentially wrong ("lend-lease", "Warsaw uprising"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.155.64.26 (talk • contribs)

I don't know what you're talking about. You were asked to bring your concerns to the article talk page — I suggest you do that. El_C 05:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There (on that page) is already a lot of what I write. We need a balance of opinions, not one opinion. Maybe you or someone else likes it. But it is one thing: a balance of opinions is Needed. You do not allow this to happen as I understand you. This is an incorrect edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.155.64.26 (talk) 05:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article talk page has not been edited since October 2019 — again, I suggest you make that your first stop. El_C 05:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editor to watch for

Just wanted to let you know regarding a situation that might have to be looked after. An apparent single-purpose account editor (Nabu-Kudurri-Usur Yaniv) has shown up today who within a few hours (without new sources) changed the results of almost two dozen long-over battles/operations of the Syrian civil war, in a number of these instances even writing results that were contrary to the cited sources (in one case he even removed the cited source). Another editor and me reverted most of his edits, pointing out to him we write per the sources and Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. I find it troubling that such massive changes were made from an apparent unsourced OR POV and writing in some instance contrary to the sources in the articles (and even removing them). EkoGraf (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He's also apparently edit warred a bit at the "Portal:Current events" and been accused of pushing a pro-Turkish POV (his edit summary comments have also not been neutral). EkoGraf (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, does not inspire confidence. I've left them a warning about adding and reverting back unsourced edits. El_C 17:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BITE. Nabu-Kudurri-Usur Yaniv (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOCK. El_C 18:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posible case of Sock here:
1) Special:Contributions/Nabu-Kudurri-Usur_Yaniv
2) Special:Contributions/176.88.141.86
Same language, same threats and same articles.Mr.User200 (talk) 20:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they are just editing logged-out by accident — hard to tell. El_C 20:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure ?? Bloqued editor and SP.
1) User:Gilesartq [19]
2) phttps://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2020_February_29&diff=prev&oldid=943220016[
Same language, same threats and same articles.Mr.User200 (talk) 21:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking if I'm sure about being unsure. Yes, with relative un/certainty! But feel free to take to SPI. El_C 21:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sockpuppets

Good day El_C (talk · contribs)!

I'd like to request for a checkuser or investigation for sockpuppetry of anonymous user 112.203.248.140 and Venny Oops (talk · contribs). The editing pattern is similar between the two of them. I also have reason to believe that they might be sockpuppets of earlier sockpuppet case Albe23413 (talk · contribs). Thank you.

Warmest regards.

Gardo Versace (talk) 08:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gardo Versace, I don't have the checkuser permission. To submit this request, please follow the steps outlined in Sockpuppet investigations. Good luck, El_C 15:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: thank you! Warmest regards Gardo Versace (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thank you for your unwavering commitment to combat vandalism :) Bibnieuws (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Bibnieuws! I appreciate your acknowledgement very much. Best, El_C 15:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks on editors

Please see the contribution of Biman1989 I have tried to reason with him but the attacks, wikilawyering are incessant. Appears to me as a ripe case of WP:TE under WP:ARBIPA. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 06:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done and done. El_C 14:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

North East Delhi riots

I see that you added protection to Talk:North East Delhi riots. Just as an FYI, Wikimedia received a number of inquiries via OTRS over the last couple days regarding this article, and I've urge them to contribute to the talk page. I think I received 13 more this morning, so a heads up when the protection expires there may be a lot of activity.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, Sphilbrick. I'll definitely do my best to keep an eye tommorow. Regards, El_C 14:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El C, I hope you don't mind my chiming in below. I wonder if we need a heads up at ANI to get more eyes on this tomorrow. I understand why protection was needed but I hate it when talk pages are protected, so I'm mulling over alternatives. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sphilbrick, not at all — have at it. The matter has already spilled over to ANI, in a way. Perhaps a note at AN would be better...? Right, no one likes protecting talk pages, but this appears to be a concerted effort, so I'm hard pressed to find alternatives to it. Hopefully, my advise is heeded, but there's a strong possibility that protection will need to be extended, by virtue of the sheer volume of disruption. El_C 15:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment, El C: I totally agreed with your imposition of semi-protection. I would have done the same, possibly for a longer period. The page was totally out of control, unusable as a talk page. If it explodes again after the protection expires, please don't hesitate to protect it again. -- MelanieN (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, MelanieN. Will do. Indeed, in hindsight, the one-day protection may have been too brief. At any event, we are all hands on deck today. El_C 12:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:North East Delhi riots page protection related

Not all new users are violating WP, I tried to put my submisssions against whatever I felt was unfair, the living person policy is being unequally applied to project some and to hide some. Protecting the talk page,which is for discussion, so that all unregistered users can't put their arguments is very unfair. Thank you 47.31.131.227 (talk) 14:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the protection expires tomorrow, and if new editors are respectful, I predict the protection won't be needed. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I protest. Banning all is unfair, even for an hour, hurts alot. thank you. 47.31.131.227 (talk) 14:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not unfair. It's unfortunate, but not unfair. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now I can't put my submission there, this is unfair to me, I did nothing wrong. 47.31.131.227 (talk) 14:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep in mind that edit requests are not being handled by the employees but by volunteers. If you go to the talk page, don't look at the talk page itself which is not all that unusual, but at the recent archives, and you will see the we are being overwhelmed by requests, many of which are not very reasonable. If you are a reasonable person, it is unfortunate that your access is being temporarily restricted, but it is not reasonable to expect volunteers to have to deal with this. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is also nothing so urgent that cannot wait 24 hours to address. A cool down is helpful to everyone. 331dot (talk) 14:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
331dot, (talk page stalker) I agree. If someone has prepared an edit request, and is just waiting for tomorrow to post it, I guarantee that if you reread it, you could probably tighten it up, add an additional or better reference, and make it a better request over the next 24 hours. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rightly said 331dot. If I'm not wrong, tomorrow is going to be a lot of edit warring and vandalism on this article. Need to keep an eye on this inevitable possibility. — The Ultimate Let's Talk 15:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, I did nothing wrong. It is not only about edit request, equal opportunity needs to given to all to put their submission on discussion page to improve the article. I feel it is unfair to block all new users47.31.131.227 (talk) 15:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody said you did anything wrong. If you want to contribute, I've explained how. While I understand why you would like it to be the case that you could contribute without bothering to meet our guidelines, there aren't enough volunteers to handle this particular incident at this time. I've reached out to encourage others to help chip in. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is highly inappropriate accusation. I reject. Would you please explain which guideline? 2405:204:3323:9B54:9562:D60B:D18F:1E69 (talk) 09:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I see you have over 10 edits. if you had registered username and made the edits while logged in, you would be well on your way to becoming confirmed. It is free and easy. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To remind you all, Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit... 47.31.131.227 (talk) 15:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The free encyclopedia anyone can edit" does not mean "anyone can edit it at any time in any manner they choose as they see fit". 331dot (talk) 15:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The ban unfairly hit some new users, and benefits some old users even if they should not. 47.31.131.227 (talk) 15:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing that you need done that cannot possibly wait some hours. The way to not have to deal with this sort of thing is to become an experienced, general contributor, which everyone has equal opportunity to do. I'll now stop taking up El C's page. 331dot (talk) 15:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I'd like to pick up on that point. I agree this restriction has impacted new contribute is more than all contributors, but not unfairly. More specifically, is exceedingly easy to become an "old" contributor. Registered username, and make 10 edits to different articles over the next 4 days. Not only will that qualify you to edit even when semi-protection is on, but if you make 10 good faith attempts at editing other articles, you will gain some experience in how best to contribute to the discussion. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want to get registered as an user, a purely personal choice. As I believe that not the user names, exprience but submissions should matter even if comes from an unregiestered user and associated benefits should never go against unregistered users. I feel this protectation unfairly affects even bonafide new users. 47.31.131.227 (talk) 15:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is certainly your choice to make, but then you must accept the consequences of that choice, such as situations like this one with the riots article. 331dot (talk) 17:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"associated benefits should never go against all unregistered users. I feel this protectation unfairly affects even bonafide new users." 2405:204:3323:9B54:9562:D60B:D18F:1E69 (talk) 09:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Madam/Sir with utmost respect I wrote here how I felt. I am not imputing bad motives behind the decision. But as a person affected by it, you must listen and know how have I felt. 47.31.163.49 (talk) 16:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) This is your only edit ever to Wikipedia. If you wrote somewhere how you felt I don't know where it is. I hope you will read the exchange above and see that many people are attempting to be responsive. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Talk pages are for discussions to improve an article. I have made edits to Wikipedia, earlier also, no need to tell its me who made that edit, no credits needed, for the sake of knowledge only, yes you guys are responses, yet I can't contribute to discussion on the protected talk page, feels very bad. 47.31.163.49 (talk) 17:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relate to Admin notice board reverts

In response to "it just shows how pissed off they are to see facts out on Wiki."

I wrote "Selectively facts are presented and missing from the artcle which voilates nuetral point of view and creates false impression." May I know why have this been reverted? Please respond. 2405:204:3318:B8D4:7065:6C8D:AD1B:E694 (talk) 12:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because I don't want content disputes that pertain to the article in question to spillover to the admin noticeboard. El_C 12:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, nor do I, but then "it just shows how pissed off they are to see facts out on Wiki." why does this is acceptable at the noticeboard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:3318:B8D4:7065:6C8D:AD1B:E694 (talk • contribs)
Some leeway is given when the reference is to fringe content. El_C 12:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to do with finge content, but the "see facts out on Wiki" is not needed, which suggest that no problem with the fact selected and mission from the article. This is also not needed here. 2405:204:3318:B8D4:7065:6C8D:AD1B:E694 (talk) 12:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was my read of the comment, at least. No, I'm not inclined to redact that from that section at this time. El_C 12:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you cared to remove my response to it soon, why not? 2405:204:3318:B8D4:7065:6C8D:AD1B:E694 (talk) 12:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because I disagree with you about the fringe content bit. El_C 12:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, I am not defending the fringe content. I comment in response to a comment you removed it. Again write nothing to do with fringe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:3318:B8D4:7065:6C8D:AD1B:E694 (talk • contribs)
I was referring to the comment you wish to see removed, not to your own. El_C 12:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not the comment but the part "see facts out on Wiki" why my comment in response to this part of comment was removed? 2405:204:3318:B8D4:7065:6C8D:AD1B:E694 (talk) 12:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because I don't want content disputes that pertain to the article in question to spillover to the admin noticeboard. El_C 12:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If "facts out on Wiki" is permitted and a response to it should also be permitted, given it suggests no problem with facts selected and mission from the article. 2405:204:3318:B8D4:7065:6C8D:AD1B:E694 (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that facts out on Wiki comment refers to fringe content, so some leeway is given. El_C 12:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not refers to fringe content, rather it refers to the facts out in the article. 2405:204:3318:B8D4:7065:6C8D:AD1B:E694 (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Look, this conversation has become circular. This is your recourse if you feel that strongly about it: convince any other admin to restore the comment (they do not need to consult me in any way whatsoever). El_C 12:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You cared to remove my response, so came to you. This is unequal and unfair. Wish no one is treated unfairly. 2405:204:3318:B8D4:7065:6C8D:AD1B:E694 (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you feel this way, but I disagree. El_C 13:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice. This is now at Admin notice board. 2405:204:3318:B8D4:7065:6C8D:AD1B:E694 (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. El_C 13:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
This seems much deserved. Guettarda (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Guettarda! Much appreciated. Always nice to see you. El_C 13:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warning?

But I did not 'remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia', as your warning said. See User talk:Anachronist for what I did do. My reverts are more justified than his. 64.188.172.95 (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did — as is clear from this diff. El_C 14:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is misleading - the material it looks like I removed was specifically selected because it was redundant or otherwise unnecessary. That is not vandal/test page blanking and should not be treated as the same. 64.188.172.95 (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. But you should not be edit warring to restore your version. And you should better explain why you are removing sourced content. "Nothing to discuss, go away" is not an acceptable response. El_C 14:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nabi Kudurri return.

Same sock returned 30 minutes after ban, with new IP account: Special:Contributions/176.88.136.202 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.User200 (talk • contribs)

I can't tell that that's a sock. Again, maybe ask at SPI. El_C 17:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to notify you that this user has directed a personal attack towards me [20], I noticed at his talk page that he was previously warned by another user of personal attacks as well[21]. Please take action as necessary. 176.88.136.202 (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That user has been indefinitely blocked since. Still, Mr.User200, let's take it down a notch. El_C 17:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not talking about Nabi, Mr.User200 has personally attacked me, please see the diffs above. 176.88.136.202 (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but no personal attack was made on Anon user 176.88.136.202. Simply i am not his individual employee or paid editor. If he wants to make edits, he can make them by its own.Mr.User200 (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully, you two can sort out whatever it is that's being contested in a civil manner. Good luck. El_C 17:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also he called one of my edits "pathetic wording" the same languague used by those banned editors. Maybe he es the same person. Just in case, 176.88.136.202 have you used another account in Wikipedia??Mr.User200 (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Single-purpose account

I will kindly ask you to pay closer attention to this editing as it has gone unnoticed for far too long and I do not see it to be per Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia.

This is just some of the recent work: [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]

+ resorting to sock puppets [34] (there is more to be found)

Cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadko: are you going to submit an SPI report? El_C 23:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not good with that sort of reports (my partial lack of technical knowledge). Could I kindly ask you to do it (with pinging me in the report)? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sadko: I'm not sure I'd know what to put in that report as I lack the knowledge you have about the case. El_C 23:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, thank you for the feedback. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was speaking collectively for those of us upset with Connie Glynn for removing her videos.

I'm the only one using this specific IP address but if you look at her page's history you will see edits from several of us.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:El_C&oldid=943450562"